“Vaccine Shedding”: Time Up For Another Vaccine Myth

One myth often pulled out by antivaccination lobbyists to malign vaccine safety is the senseless term “Vaccine Shedding”.

Whilst in context we all know what is meant, it’s worth pausing to consider that the term is a byproduct, if you will, of the antivaccination movement’s skill at sowing misinformation. The unrivaled ability to scan a headline and regurgitate some ghastly tale about vaccines. To squeeze another fallacious vaccine “danger” onto the shelf, content in the knowledge it will soon have a life of it’s own.

The colloquial use of this nonsensical term seeks to convey that an individual who has been vaccinated can readily shed part of the vaccine and cause infection in the unvaccinated. Which by definition demands them to have shed not a vaccine but an infectious agent. Indeed a virus. Which by extension demands the vaccine to be a live virus vaccine. This then opens the door to viral shedding the vast complexities of vaccine induced immunity and viable modes of excretion – aka shedding. That won’t stop your garden variety anti-vaxxer claiming any vaccine can lead to infection of the unvaccinated via this ghastly “vaccine shedding”.

But that’s only part of the story. “Vaccine shedding” is a double barrelled myth in that transmission is assumed to occur ipso facto. Shedding is not transmission. Period. Yet denial of vaccine efficacy requires internalisation of some whacky stuff. Including the erroneous belief that viral shedding follows MMR vaccination. Yet worse is the myth that inactivated vaccines pose the risk of infection due to “vaccine shedding”. Pertussis often brings out the malicious side of anti-vaxxers. DTaP is inactivated. Indeed the pertussis component is acellular. So, you may wonder at the nature of Cynthia Janak who writes in Will the vaccinated infect the unvaccinated? That is the question with Whooping cough:

Before I continue I want to tell you about a fact that is known by the CDC, etc. That is called vaccine shedding. This is the transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person. [….] I want you to understand that this is true for vaccines including the Whooping Cough. What you could have happen is that all these parents and child care workers are going to get the vaccine and then take care of children. [….] The vaccinated have the potential to infect the unvaccinated child. This could cause the next epidemic of disease like what happened with the small pox epidemic.

So, in Cynthia’s mind “vaccine shedding” is, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”. Wrong. And it’s true for whooping cough. Impossible. Yet Cynthia Janak asserts there’s potential for an epidemic like smallpox? Pure fiction. Contracting pertussis because an unvaccinated and infected child or adult who ignores boosters has breathed on someone is, however, a simple fact. Aiming to inflate the danger of her misguided concern about “vaccine shedding” as “known by the CDC”, Cynthia uses references to FluMist.

FluMist a live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) sprayed into the nostrils and well understood regarding shedding. Concerns about administering a live virus this way should be respected. So should the facts about any risks. It sheds in low concentration for short periods via nasal discharge. It is not associated with person to person transmission. Given that wild type influenza sheds at far higher concentration, is found on fixtures, objects, skin and is strongly associated with transmission, severe illness and complications it seems Cynthia has been selective about what’s “known by the CDC”.

“Vaccine shedding” is better suited to mid 19th century notions like the infectious miasma, wafting about in terrifying unseen clouds held aloft by our lack of knowledge. Nor does the rare instance of shedding suddenly turn any agent into a virus with the infectious capability of Ebola. But anti-vax voices are often raised in triumph that the crime of “vaccine shedding” places the community at greater risk than the rising numbers of unvaccinated.

The scale of error associated with this belief is akin to the myth of potential vaccine injuries outweighing the benefits of vaccination. Serious injuries that do occur are primarily in populations genetically predisposed to latent complications and manifestation is extremely rare. Injuries, disability and death from vaccine preventable disease would occur at magnitudes many hundreds or thousands of times greater and can manifest in anyone. Vaccine injuries are artificially inflated by confusing correlation (sometimes years apart) with causation, and by including red marks, crying, sleep disturbance or omitting that event X was a serious allergic reaction to latex syringe components. Similarly, arguing ones unvaccinated child is at risk from, or has been infected by, a recently vaccinated child is quite a claim.

Viral shedding itself is by no means ignored by the medical community. It’s of primary concern in the management of immune compromised patients, pregnant women and newborns. Varicella is an excellent example in that a.) viral shedding is well understood and b.) the risk from shedding can be discerned from precautions taken. Following varicella vaccination, viral shedding can be detected in the stools for six weeks.

In the case of immunodeficiency disorders or immune suppression from drugs, transfusions, stem cell transplant, chemotherapy etc, the recommendations are to avoid contact with fecal matter of vaccinated subjects and to observe good hygiene. To put this in context, unvaccinated children who spend one hour in a room with an infected child (shedding varicella) stand a 95% chance of contracting varicella (chicken pox). This is why vaccination against varicella is vital and choosing to not vaccinate your child places him or her and by extension countless others at risk of serious complication.

For nursing mothers post natal varicella vaccination need not be delayed if they are varicella-susceptible as varicella hasn’t been found in breast milk post maternal vaccination. There is no problematic risk of viral shedding to newborns provided hand washing and other hygiene measures are followed.

Whilst rare, a post-varicella immunisation vesicular rash can form. Again whilst quite rare, viral shedding can occur at this site. Plainly stated it’s incredibly rare for an unvaccinated child to be infected with varicella from a vaccinated subject and a series of events, including transmission, must occur within a small window of opportunity. Greatest precautions must be taken in the case of immune suppression. Writing in Vaccines in immunocompromised patients, Janet R. Serwint, MD Consulting Editor notes:

Because the varicella virus rarely can be shed through a postimmunization vesicular rash that may develop, recommendations include avoiding contact until the rash resolves.

In March this year there was an interesting case of viral shedding. The antivaccination lobby bellowed that Varicella zoster virus DNA had been found in the saliva of people over 60 vaccinated with the live Zostavax vaccine manufactured by Merck. In this age group Herpes zoster (shingles) is the target. Shingles is the result of infection with VZV earlier in life which may reactivate as immunity declines or from novel infection. Despite blog headings like Vaccinated people SHED LIVE HERPES for up to a month AFTER vaccination, be aware it was 2 of 36 “vaccinated people” who made the grade.

There was no indication of infection risk at the time. Today transmission is considered rare. Packet inserts carried the standard warnings found in varicella immunisations to avoid contact with infants, nursing mothers and immunocompromised individuals. “Doctors never tell you this”, lied the anti-vax lobby. The end result is that, fortuitously, it appears a saliva test could be developed allowing for detection and antiviral therapy before the painful rash appears. All up with rare potential for transmission from about 5% of recipients of a vaccine that’s not widely used it was a non event.

With MMR the lack of viral shedding renders any risk of horizontal transmission in this manner null and void. If challenged with the claim of “vaccine shedding” specific to Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccination you’re being misled.

Immunocompromised contacts should be advised to avoid contact with stool from the immunised child if possible, particularly after the first vaccine dose for at least 14 days. Since the risk of vaccine transmission and subsequent vaccine-derived disease with the current vaccines is much less than the risk of wild type rotavirus disease in immunocompromised contacts, vaccination should be encouraged.

The “vaccine shedding” bogeyman got a free kick with the FluMist LAIV vaccine. You may remember the hype. The spraying of “living influenza virus” straight into children’s brains was going to lead to mutation and death on an unprecedented scale. It would genetically revert to the wild type. Transmission would thus be uncontrolled. It would quickly prove useless against changing seasonal strains. ADR’s would rise…. and so on. Ultimately the cost proved to be a deterrent. Mayo Clinic have produced a welcome article on LAIV Myths.

In a comprehensive 2008 study with a sample aged 2 – 49 years, shedding “of short duration and at low titers” was detected in nasal swabs on days 1 – 11. LAIV recipients “should only avoid contact with severely immunocompromised persons for 7 days after vaccination”.

One concern regarding use of LAIV among HCP has been the potential for transmitting vaccine virus from persons receiving vaccine to nonimmune patients at high risk. Available data indicate that children and adults vaccinated with LAIV can shed vaccine viruses for >2 days after vaccination, although in lower titers than typically occur with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses. Shedding should not be equated with person-to-person transmission of vaccine viruses, although transmission of shed vaccine viruses from vaccinated persons to nonvaccinated persons has been documented in rare instances among children in a day care center.

One study conducted in a child care center assessed transmissibility of vaccine viruses from 98 vaccinated persons to 99 unvaccinated controls aged 8–36 months; 80% of vaccine recipients shed one or more virus strains (mean duration: 7.6 days). [….] The estimated probability of acquiring vaccine virus after close contact with a single LAIV recipient in this child care population was 0.6%–2.4%.

It was also documented that should HIV positive children be exposed to LAIV shedding, “… serious adverse outcomes would not be expected to occur frequently”. So the combination of live virus shedding and immune deficiency in the case of LAIV presents low risk. Certainly the overall risk associated with the rare transmission following shedding after LAIV is insignificant given the risk of regular influenza virus transmission.

We’re running out of dramatic scenarios for the antivaccination lobby to cling to. With polio the wild virus replicates in the intestine and is shed in stools for up to a month. Transmission in developed nations is thus faecal-oral like other stool shed viral components. It is of course so rare as to be unheard of. However, given that the IOM report into evidence and causality of vaccine adverse effects found a causal link between the oral polio vaccine (OPV) and vaccine associated paralytic polio (or Vaccine Derived Polio Virus), we should seriously consider shedding in areas where this is documented.

In fact the question has been asked if prolonged VDPV shedding could be a source of reintroduction following polio eradication. The more compromised the immune system the more likely the individual is to have problems with vaccine induced immunity. A study looking for VDPV shedding in immune deficient subjects in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire found no cases in a sample of 419, and therefore a “minimal risk of reintroduction [after eradication]”. In respect of general exposure to shedding in these environments transmission of the wild type polio virus eliminates any concern over post vaccination viral shedding. Crowding, sewerage, water quality etc all contribute to wild polio spread in ways that do not apply to the developed world.

Remembering that viral shedding is of paramount concern in the management of immune deficiency and immunocompromise, let’s revisit the Janet R. Serwint, MD of Vaccines in immunocompromised patients. Rather than warn against exposure to immunised children the recommendation is to ensure schedules are up to date and an annual inactivated influenza vaccine is on board. Pay attention to reference to MMR, varicella and rotavirus:

One strategy worth emphasizing is the immunization of household contacts, particularly other children and adolescents in the family. This procedure is essential to try to minimize exposure of the immunocompromised patient to household contacts who might contract vaccine-preventable illnesses. Pediatric health-care clinicians need to update and review the vaccine status of all siblings and pediatric-age household members. Annual influenza vaccination of all family members with inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended in addition to ensuring routine immunization of all other recommended vaccines.

MMR, varicella, and rotavirus vaccines, although live viral vaccines, are recommended for immunocompetent household contacts because transmission of the virus is rare. The lack of viral shedding with MMR eliminates concern regarding transmission. Because the varicella virus rarely can be shed through a postimmunization vesicular rash that may develop, recommendations include avoiding contact until the rash resolves. For the rotavirus vaccine, avoidance of contact with the stools by the immunocompromised patient and good hand hygiene measures by all family members for at least 1 week after vaccination should be implemented.

In conclusion it’s clear that “vaccine shedding” is a nonsense phrase. The lack of accounts of children transmitting viruses to younger siblings and friends after vaccination is a dead giveaway. Whilst viral shedding is a reality we can be confident that:

Viral shedding applies only to live virus vaccines and is significantly low, low risk

Post vaccination viral shedding of rotavirus and varicella is detected in the stools for 4-6 weeks respectively. It’s of such low risk as to be of cautionary interest regarding immunocompromised individuals

Genuine concern about viral shedding in these groups is managed with sound hygiene and avoiding contact with stools

In rare cases of post varicella immunisation vesicular rash shedding may occur. Transmission is still unlikely

The lack of viral shedding following MMR eliminates any concerns about transmission

75 Responses to “Vaccine Shedding”: Time Up For Another Vaccine Myth

“Accurate information about the topic is drowned out by antivaccination sites and “mothering” forums making inaccurate claims”
Sadly true for all vaccination info.Janak’s a self-referential idiot: Ask her to back up her claims and she’ll refer you to half-a-dozen badly-written posts on her own blog, all of which merely repeat the same old nonsense ad nauseam.

So funny that you would think shedding is not true. Go to both government sites and pharma sites to the actual information on the vaccine. In the literature PROVIDED BY THESE SITES, it states there is shedding of the live virus FROM THE VACCINATED INDIVIDUAL. The MMR vaccine from Merck states that “Excretion of small amounts of the live attenuated rubella virus from the nose or throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7 to 28 days after vaccination.” Therefore, you are saying the government and pharma are lying ? This is their actual documentation.

Excretion of small amounts of the live attenuated rubella virus from the nose or throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7-28 days after vaccination. There is no confirmed evidence to indicate that such virus is transmitted to susceptible persons who are in contact with the vaccinated individuals. Consequently, transmission through close personal contact, while accepted as a theoretical possibility, is not regarded as a significant risk. However, transmission of the rubella vaccine virus to infants via breast milk has been documented (see Nursing Mothers).

There are no reports of transmission of live attenuated measles virus from vaccinees to susceptible contacts.

Why would Merck lie to their consumers and say a majority when it is 2% and the shedding i so miniscule in those people that they do not even warn you about immune compromised people? Not to mention it is only particles and not even the whole attenuated virus. No one is denying that viruses shed. Did you read the article?

(Reuters) – A two-year-old boy who developed a serious reaction to his father’s smallpox vaccination has recovered but disease detectives found infectious virus all over his house, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Thursday.

The Indiana toddler developed a rare rash known as eczema vaccinatum after playing with his father, a soldier vaccinated for deployment in Iraq, reported Dr. John Marcinak of the University of Chicago and CDC experts.

Experimental treatments helped the child, but the CDC said the incident showed that care must be taken by people who receive the smallpox vaccine.

It was the first case of eczema vaccinatum reported in the United States since 1988, the CDC said. The child was hospitalized for 48 days but should suffer no long-term consequences other than possible scarring, said the report, published in the CDC’s weekly report on death and disease.

Pox viruses can survive on inanimate objects so experts tested the family’s home.

“Multiple swab samples obtained from the home (e.g., from a bathroom washcloth, a slipper, a toy drum, a night stand, a booster seat, and an ointment container) and from items brought to the child’s hospital room (e.g., an infant drinking cup and a car seat) were positive for vaccinia virus DNA,” the researchers wrote.

They steam-cleaned the home and washed clothing and linens after an acid pre-treatment.

The World Health Organization declared smallpox eradicated in 1979. The U.S. government reinstated smallpox vaccination for military personnel and selected healthcare workers because of fears the virus could be used in a biological attack.

“The U.S. Department of Defense had vaccinated approximately 1.2 million persons as of March 2007,” the report reads.

The smallpox vaccine uses a related and usually harmless virus called vaccinia. It is scratched into the skin and forms a pustule that scabs over and falls off.

People with eczema and immune conditions can develop a serious reaction if they are vaccinated or come into contact with the blisters of a vaccinated person.

The soldier received the vaccine even though he had a history of skin allergies.

“His deployment was delayed, so he made an unplanned visit home to visit his family in Indiana,” the report reads. “His routine activities with his son included hugging, wrestling, sleeping, and bathing.”

The child developed a rash and later severe illness. After a week of experimental treatments he began to get better.

The treatments included an antiviral drug made by Siga Technologies Inc., vaccinia immune globulin and the antiviral drug cidofovir, made by Gilead Sciences Inc..

The child’s mother also had a rash, which went away after she got immune globulin, a treatment made from the blood of vaccinated people.

On Thursday a panel of FDA advisers recommended approval of a new smallpox vaccine made by Acambis Plc that is designed to be safer than the old vaccine.

This first case of EV (eczema vaccinatum) in 23 years and in the case of an immunocompromised (allergy prone) patient shows up how huge the myth is that “vaccine shedding” is supposedly, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”.
I note the article’s author nor commenters don’t not use the term “vaccine shedding”.
As I point out “Viral shedding itself is by no means ignored by the medical community. It’s of primary concern in the management of immune compromised patients, pregnant women and newborns.”
Which is exactly the case here, underscoring how seriously conventional medicine takes viral shedding, and just how misguided the notion of passing on (in this case smallpox) a virus actually is.
Note the dynamic contributing to viral passage:“His deployment was delayed, so he made an unplanned visit home to visit his family in Indiana,” the report reads. “His routine activities with his son included hugging, wrestling, sleeping, and bathing.”
The article states:People with eczema and immune conditions can develop a serious reaction if they are vaccinated or come into contact with the blisters of a vaccinated person.
And The soldier received the vaccine even though he had a history of skin allergies.

That this is the first case in 23 years – only after gross negligence on the part of the soldier in visiting his family – highlights how rare post vaccination viral shedding actually is.
Regrettably this chap received the vaccine despite a history of allergies (he should not have) then foolishly placed his child at risk.

It also brings home how important vaccination is. If this were varicella and vaccination wasn’t available, 95% of unvaccinated people in a room with a chicken pox case would come down with the disease.
Fortunately the mother received immune globulin negating any vaccinia effect. Saved by vaccine science.

And:The child developed a rash and later severe illness. After a week of experimental treatments he began to get better.
The treatments included an antiviral drug made by Siga Technologies Inc., vaccinia immune globulin and the antiviral drug cidofovir, made by Gilead Sciences Inc.. Saved by vaccine science.
So we have:

No transmission of the condition vaccinated against as it is vaccinia not smallpox
The first case in 23 years of EV and this required a unique chain of events
A case of viral shedding occurring as expected in a soldier with a history of skin allergies
The soldier arguably not disclosing his medical history
The soldier ignoring post vaccination advice and coming into contact with a small baby
Not a hint of “vaccine shedding” to be seen
Immune globulin protecting the mother – “a treatment made from the blood of vaccinated people.”
A text book case of what the medical community warns about with immunocompromised, pregnant women and small babies
1.2 million persons vaccinated with vaccinia and only this obscure case – a triumph of vaccine success
Nothing to support the myth of “vaccine shedding”
Even less to support “vaccine shedding” as endangering children who don’t vaccinate.

All up it is a tremendous reinforcement of how bizarre antivaccination arguments are that people recently vaccinated can “shed” a vaccine.

I’m confused, you emphatically state that vaccine shedding is a myth, but in the same breath admit to multiple cases of vaccine shedding in your post. The denial in you is strong. Also, measles vaccine shedding is very much true, as it is for the other live vaccines. You’re an absolute nut.

Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients
PAUL A. ROTA, et al. J CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, Sept. 1995, p. 2485–2488 Vol. 33, No. 9http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228449/pdf/332485.pdf
Overall, measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period. In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after vaccination. Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination. This assay will enable continued studies of the shedding and transmission of measles virus and, it is hoped, will provide a rapid means to identify measles infection, especially in mild or asymptomatic cases.

Except you refer to “Measles Virus RNA”, found in urine. I’m underscoring the fact that it is a nonsensical myth that when Person A is vaccinated for measles they can shed live measles virus and infect other (unvaccinated) people.

Indeed you show this yourself by copy/pasting from the PDF:

Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination. This assay will enable continued studies of the shedding and transmission of measles virus and, it is hoped, will provide a rapid means to identify measles infection, especially in mild or asymptomatic cases.

Nothing there refers to the potential viral shedding as originating from MMR or measles monovalent vaccine. A nucleic acid specific to proteins in the measles virus has been found in urine. This doesn’t indicate shedding of the measles virus or transmission of the virus. As Janet R. Serwint, MD of Vaccines in immunocompromised patients. notes:

This first case of EV (eczema vaccinatum) in 23 years and in the case of an immunocompromised (allergy prone) patient shows up how huge the myth is that “vaccine shedding” is supposedly, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”.
I note the article’s author nor commenters don’t not use the term “vaccine shedding”.
As I point out “Viral shedding itself is by no means ignored by the medical community. It’s of primary concern in the management of immune compromised patients, pregnant women and newborns.”
Which is exactly the case here, underscoring how seriously conventional medicine takes viral shedding, and just how misguided the notion of passing on (in this case smallpox) a virus actually is.
Note the dynamic contributing to viral passage:“His deployment was delayed, so he made an unplanned visit home to visit his family in Indiana,” the report reads. “His routine activities with his son included hugging, wrestling, sleeping, and bathing.”
The article states:People with eczema and immune conditions can develop a serious reaction if they are vaccinated or come into contact with the blisters of a vaccinated person.
And The soldier received the vaccine even though he had a history of skin allergies.

That this is the first case in 23 years – only after gross negligence on the part of the soldier in visiting his family – highlights how rare post vaccination viral shedding actually is.
Regrettably this chap received the vaccine despite a history of allergies (he should not have) then foolishly placed his child at risk.

It also brings home how important vaccination is. If this were varicella and vaccination wasn’t available, 95% of unvaccinated people in a room with a chicken pox case would come down with the disease.
Fortunately the mother received immune globulin negating any vaccinia effect. Saved by vaccine science.

And:The child developed a rash and later severe illness. After a week of experimental treatments he began to get better.
The treatments included an antiviral drug made by Siga Technologies Inc., vaccinia immune globulin and the antiviral drug cidofovir, made by Gilead Sciences Inc.. Saved by vaccine science.
So we have:

No transmission of the condition vaccinated against as it is vaccinia not smallpox
The first case in 23 years of EV and this required a unique chain of events
A case of viral shedding occurring as expected in a soldier with a history of skin allergies
The soldier arguably not disclosing his medical history
The soldier ignoring post vaccination advice and coming into contact with a small baby
Not a hint of “vaccine shedding” to be seen
Immune globulin protecting the mother – “a treatment made from the blood of vaccinated people.”
A text book case of what the medical community warns about with immunocompromised, pregnant women and small babies
1.2 million persons vaccinated with vaccinia and only this obscure case – a triumph of vaccine success
Nothing to support the myth of “vaccine shedding”
Even less to support “vaccine shedding” as endangering children who don’t vaccinate.

All up it is a tremendous reinforcement of how bizarre antivaccination arguments are that people recently vaccinated can “shed” a vaccine.

Thank you for this… I recently ran into this idea of “vaccine shedding” and everything online seems to give it credence. It sounded like just another attempt at someone trying to reinforce their unsubstantiated ideas. I prefer facts over scary stories.

Thanks for highlighting a regular anti-vaccination theme used in disinformation. The pertussis vaccine is made by inactivating various isolates of the pertussis toxin. Usually between three and five. The inactivated toxins are known as toxoids.

When injected, the immune system recognises these toxoids just as if they were toxins. So the vaccine elicits an immune response suitable to manage future exposure to toxin following exposure only to inactivated (killed) variations.

I’m disappointed that from pages and pages outlining the strict manufacturing guidelines, process and GMP you chose only 8 words presented out of context. Under Tests undertaken after detoxification/chemical treatment on page 64 we read:

Residual Activity of pertussis toxin.“The amount of residual biologically active pertussis toxin in the individually or co-purified antigens should be estimated after detoxification by means of a sufficiently sensitive test, for example the CHO-cell test. When diluted to vaccine strength the total amount of residual pertussis toxin from all pertussis antigens should not exceed that found in vaccine lots shown to be safe in clinical trials and approved by the national control authority”.

There is extensive consideration given to safety and purity of all compounds and reagents used in manufacture. The potential for changes in toxicity whilst in storage is met with strict guidelines demanding ongoing testing, meeting the criteria of each national control authority and that, “it is essential that research to identify immunological markers of protection against pertussis be actively supported and pursued and that there be rigorous post licensing monitoring of vaccines for safety and effectiveness”. [page 58]

Section: 2.3.6. [page 66] again repeats:

“Each final bulk of vaccine should be tested for the presence of active pertussis toxin using a sufficiently sensitive histamine sensitization test. The acceptable amount of active residual pertussis toxin in the final bulk when diluted to vaccine strength should meet the specification approved by the national control authority on the basis of vaccine lots shown to be safe in clinical trials”.

Above in bold we have the source of your 8 words – albeit only 7 are correct. Nothing in that paper challenges my post and nor did it state – as you claim – “there is an acceptable amount…”. It clearly states that residual pertussis toxin is only acceptable if it meets approved national specifications, that are themselves derived from the demonstration of safety in clinical trials.

You are in fact, in startling error.

I appreciate the opportunity to highlight (or should that be “rant”) how disinformation is spread by what is the scurrilous abuse of existing material.

If you want real facts about vaccinations you need to read the manufacturer guidelines and specs. The CDC and AMA do n ot follow the guidelines set forth by the manufacturers.

Also a point of interest in the vaccine debate. As your child is preparing to get a vaccine, you the parent are handed a flyer preprinted in bulk either by the dr. office or the local medical facility. It describes what the vaccine is and the possible side effects to the vaccine. The person administering the vax will ask if you have any questions. You ask about the possible reactions and are told it’s nothing really, you have nothing to worry about. The child receives the vaccine and as you leave the office you are told that is any unusual symptoms develop in the next 48-72 hrs to call the dr. office. 2 days later you call to say that your child just had a vaccine and is running a fever. You get into the office to see the dr. and the 1st thing you are told is that he/she doesn’t know what it is but it had nothing to do with the vaccine. Been there, done that. That’s how I know. And NEVER, EVER is a vaccine supposed to be administered on a child that has a sneeze, sniffle or low-grade fever. But I know for a fact that drs. do it anyway. My grandson was sick and got vaccines then he got worse. I told my son to wait a year before getting anymore vaccines because we don’t know if he got worse because he was sick to begin with or he got worse because he had a vaccine reaction. Stupid dr. She could have killed him.

Lastly, ask around when you see people with a disable child. A good number will tell you that the child was perfectly normal til she/he got vaccines.

“Lastly, ask around when you see people with a disable (sic) child. A good number will tell you that the child was perfectly normal til she/he got vaccines.” Really? Having worked with disabled clients most of my life, I find that markedly in error. What is “a good number”?

You’re quite right in (unwittingly) pointing out a simple child fever and nasal discharge is unrelated to vaccination. Your grandson “got worse” because the illness he already had progressed – not because he received a vaccine. Wait a year? And your son acquiesced to risking his child’s health based on your reasoning? Sure.

You should not work with disable kids period. Read the CDC website about vaccine shedding and it totally contradicts your provaccine chanting. It would not surprice me if this site is paid by big pharma. What they are doing is genocide. Just greed.

Your facts are not facts at all. First I was never given any preprinted flyer I was given a huge multifolded paper with a lot of information. Why would a doctor see you if you child just got a vaccine and then gets a fever. They would tell you that is common and to give tylenol and extra fluids. Also, most vaccine are not contraindicated for a child that is sick unless they are severely ill or have influenza because influenza leaves you immune compromised for the duration of the infection and some time after. If there is no fever over 101 C all vaccines can be given.

Well, I didn’t get a single piece of paper EVER when vaccinating my 4 children (between 2000 – 2008), not ONE word about any reactions that could happen or what to watch out for, nothing, nada, zip. We would of been in and out of the doctors rooms easily before 5 mins was up. Given that we lived 1.5 hours from the nearest doctor or hospital I think that’s a bit off.

With regards to “So, in Cynthia’s mind “vaccine shedding” is, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”. Wrong. And it’s true for whooping cough. Impossible. “, I’m somewhat surprised you haven’t pointed out that it’s impossible at the very least because whooping cough is not caused by a virus but by a bacterium.

Since the risk of vaccine transmission and subsequent vaccine-derived disease with the current vaccines is much less than the risk of wildtype rotavirus disease in immunocompromised contacts, vaccination should be encouraged.

Was wondering what your thoughts are on the FDA press release late 2013 on whooping cough bacteria in the respiratory tract of recently vaccinated gorillas. When exposed to the unvaccinated gorillas, they all got whooping cough?? And this was with the acellular vaccine? I gathered from your article that catching pertussis from a recently vaccinated person was “impossible”?

No what you should “gather from my article” is “that catching pertussis from a recently vaccinated person” because of the vaccine is impossible.

More simply one cannot be infected with pertussis because of bacterial shedding, when the source of the pertussis bacteria is a vaccine. This is because the pertussis bacteria is inactive. Killed. Dead.

This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.
This is not stating they pass on bacteria from the vaccine. That bacteria is dead and thus inactive. But they may still carry the live bacteria from another source and also pass it on to other primates.
Hence the acellular vaccine is not as effective as the whole cell vaccine which preceded it.

My son was vaccinated almost 2 weeks ago for chicken pox. Less than 2 days later, I broke out in an itchy rash all over my stomach, back and chest with a few on my arms. It looks identical to CP. I had CP as a 9 month old so my questions are 1. Is this a second infection? 2. I thought the CP vax cannot shed, transmit and infect another person?? I am becoming concerned because I am approaching 2 weeks with this rash and while some blisters are ffinally going away, others are forming in new areas. It feels like this is never going to end!!

First, let me state that I am not convinced either way. I am merely a simple human parent, most oftentimes incapable of comprehending the vast majority of medical jargon. However, I am curious why you insist on weaving so many slights, insults, and condescending comments into EVERY single one of your responses? I get that you’re a highly intelligent individual that is fed up with dealing with the ‘uneducated masses’. However, you cannot deny:

1) BOTH sides of this argument have been guilty of stretching the truth.
2) You also cannot deny the existence of an immense profit motive. Despite my simple caveman brain, I do know that when large sums of money are involved, issues tend to get extremely complicated real quick. No, it doesn’t prove anything, but it does muddy the waters.

So, it stands to reason that there is enough reasonable doubt out there to cause legitimate concern for parents to dare ask a few basic questions. And yet, your responses are filled with complicated and highly nuanced points, which you present as simple universal truths. You then close every retort by feigning ‘incredulosity’ (ok, made up word) that folks can’t comprehend such simple concepts. Every single response is crafted in this manner, which suggests that you’re following some sort of playbook, as it were.

And what exactly what did Sue state that made you brush off her account as a ‘silly made up story’?

I hope you realize that your air of superiority may be counterproductive to what you’re trying to accomplish here.

“However, I am curious why you insist on weaving so many slights, insults, and condescending comments into EVERY single one of your responses?”
Such nonsense. Simply my genetic superiority is matched only by one other feature: my humble and extreme modesty. But seriously – both sides do not stretch the truth. There is fact and scientific consensus. This supports vaccine regimes just as it keeps planes aloft and modern media available.

It’s frustrating hearing vaccine opponents pronounce “I’ve done my research”, when what is needed are skills in identifying reputable, reliable information sources as opposed to misinformation. Little wonder vaccine opponents so quickly resort to stories of corporate greed, “sheep” or governments suppressing “health choices”. The evidence that vaccines are not needed or are widely harmful does not exist. Vaccines are not the profitable product opponents insist.

For decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs. This troubled public-health experts because vaccines are a highly effective way of dealing with diseases.

Yet even with resultant improvement since 2005 profits remain comparatively sedentary. Vaccines are well down the list of profit making products for pharmaceutical companies. Why prevent widespread disease for average profit when drug treatment of the same would provide endless profits?
But the grab bag of tricks vaccine opponents have is endless. Eg; use of self reported and horrific “vaccine injuries” as purportedly backed by investigation (and thus genuine fact) when it is nothing but raw and unverified noise. Even turning into The Hulk after a flu vaccine – this example lodged and accepted by VAERS to highlight the unreliability of claims from raw self reporting.

After terrifying expectant parents with claims of death and disability this is topped off with the (accurate) claim that only approx 10% of adverse reactions are reported. What *are* underreported reactions? Redness, lumps, soreness, itching or feeling a bit fluey. But some believe awful reactions are ten times greater than reported and make decisions on such misleading, unreliable rubbish.
A good place to start is the Cancer Council (Victoria) advice on alternative treatments and the typical items found on scam websites.

The model can apply to scam vaccine advice sites. Beware of testimonials, natural “immune boosters”, treatments and cures, miraculous discoveries, non-government recognised agencies and those with no business commenting on vaccines, fluoride in water and medicine in general.

But to avoid nuance in regards to this topic, it’s important to understand that very rare viral shedding is not viral transmission. And viral transmission is not “vaccine shedding” – which is a made up term to malign vaccination.

I am pro -vaccination. I really like your article and would love to show it to some of my anti-vaxer friends, but think they would be put off by your obvious disdain for them, and hence not read the article properly. Any chance of a re-write that approaches anti-vaxers in a more respectful way?

You left out info. Yes traces of the sickness via vaccine can be found in the feces but it can also be found in the mouth. This has been tested via mouth swab, which i believe was also on the cdc website. If such a person than sneezed or got their saliva on another individual than yes, another can get sick froma person. Therefore yes shedding does occur even if you think otherwise.

No, you’ve assumed shedding occurs this way to such an extent that transmission and consequent infection occurs. This is wrong. The post deals with the false claim that vaccine driven viral shedding leads to a population of infected individuals, who would remain uninfected otherwise.
I don’t “think otherwise” but consult facts and provide citations.
Christina, you’re happily making up these stories where you “believe” yadda, yadda. You are simply wrong and utterly, crushingly, abominably boring as a result.

Unfortunately most anti-vaxers fail to understand the scientific meaning of “shedding”. Shedding does not mean live virus is be left everywhere you go, but that TRACE genetic markers and protiens of the virus can be detected. This genetic markers and proteins can illicit a response in someone’s immune system….in RARE cases. This is much different then spreading a disease.

Attenuated Vaccines Can Recombine to Form Virulent Field Viruses
Science 13 July 2012: Vol. 337 no. 6091 p. 188
….We show that independent recombination events between distinct attenuated vaccine strains resulted in virulent recombinant viruses that became the dominant strains responsible for widespread disease in Australian commercial poultry flocks. These findings highlight the risks of using multiple different attenuated herpesvirus vaccines, or vectors, in the same populations.
——————————-
Sibling Transmission of Vaccine-Derived Rotavirus (RotaTeq) Associated With Rotavirus Gastroenteritis
Pediatrics Vol. 125 No. 2 February 1, 2010 pp. e438 -e441
…… We document here the occurrence of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq [Merck and Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ]) transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care. ……
——————————–
Transmission of mumps virus from mumps-vaccinated individuals to close contacts
Vaccine Volume 29, Issue 51, 28 November 2011, Pages 9551–9556
During a recent mumps epidemic in the Netherlands caused by a genotype D mumps virus strain, we investigated the potential of vaccinated people to spread mumps disease to close contacts.
……While no symptomatic cases were reported among the household contacts (n = 164) of vaccinated mumps patients (n = 36), there were cases with serological evidence of asymptomatic infection among vaccinated household contacts (9 of 66 vaccinated siblings). For two of these siblings, the vaccinated index patient was the most probable source of infection. We conclude that, in this particular outbreak, the risk of a close contact becoming infected by vaccinated patients was small, but present.

Thanks Steve they are interesting publications.
They help attenuate just how rare the event of transmission is and consequently, how misleading the claim that “Vaccination > viral shedding > transmission > infection” as a regular consequence of vaccination is.

Your final piece “Transmission of mumps virus from mumps-vaccinated individuals to close contacts” doesn’t appear to make the claim that vaccine derived mumps virus has been shed and transmitted leading to infection. You’ll note I quote Janet R. Serwint, MD of Vaccines in immunocompromised patients.

Your second piece, “Sibling Transmission of Vaccine-Derived Rotavirus (RotaTeq) Associated With Rotavirus Gastroenteritis” is remarkable in that it reinforces the rarity of this event. The abstract begins:

Although rotavirus vaccines are known to be shed in stools, transmission of vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis has not been reported to our knowledge.

The first citation you offer is interesting, but not relevant to the subject matter of this post, which focuses upon the claim that individuals “shed” vaccines (meaning viruses or bacteria) and as a result cause infection. The abstract you’ve cited opens:

Recombination between herpes viruses has been seen in vitro and in vivo under experimental conditions. This has raised safety concerns about using attenuated herpesvirus vaccines in human and veterinary medicine and adds to other known concerns…

– which is also clearly under experimental conditions.

Thus I appreciate your comment but don’t see how it in any way supports “vaccine shedding”.

Don’t be ignorant and spread false information. The manufaturers themselves explain that their vaccines can shed. So does the CDC.

Flu Mist:
Can people who have gotten the nasal spray flu vaccine spread the vaccine viruses to others?

Yes, it is possible, but it is very rare. Data indicate that both children and adults vaccinated with nasal spray flu vaccine can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than typically occurs during shedding of wild-type influenza viruses.http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/nasalspray.htm

5.4 Risk of Vaccine Virus Transmission Post-marketing experience suggests that transmission of vaccine virus may occur rarely between healthy vaccinees who develop a varicella-like rash and healthy susceptible contacts. Transmission of vaccine virus from a mother who did not develop a varicella-like rash to her newborn infant has been reported. Due to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following vaccination with VARIVAX. Susceptible high-risk individuals include: • Immunocompromised individuals; • Pregnant women without documented history of varicella or laboratory evidence of prior infection; • Newborn infants of mothers without documented history of varicella or laboratory evidence of prior infection and all newborn infants born at <28 weeks gestation regardless of maternal varicella immunity.

MMR :
Excretion of small amounts of the live attenuated rubella virus from the nose or throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7 to 28 days after vaccination. There is no confirmed evidence to indicate that such virus is transmitted to susceptible persons who are in contact with the vaccinated individuals. Consequently, transmission through close personal contact, while accepted as a theoretical possibility, is not regarded as a significant risk.{33} However, transmission of the rubella vaccine virus to infants via breast milk has been documented (see Nursing Mothers).

You’ve basically reinforced my points about “vaccine shedding”. Sorry for the confusion but the aim is to quantify just how much of a risk viral shedding post vaccination is. And your sources suggest very rare, rare or impossible. I’d be interested in how you feel about others claiming dead viral/bacterial particles can (and will) cause widespread disease – as Cynthia Janak does with the pertussis vaccine.

I work in a hospital in Seattle and I also have my MPH. I am very frustrated with the anti-vaccine arguments. You have shared excellent information on this site. You have given great responses to many vaccine myths and misinformation. I applaud you! Keep up the good work in public health. We will quash the anti-vaccine movement one day at a time. Or until natural selection occurs and all of the unvaccinated perish to preventable disease as a result of their own ignorance.

That’s why I addressed “vaccine” shedding. The claim that shedding viruses from vaccines is 1) Far more common than wild viral shedding. That’s false.
2) Occurs in a manner that ensures infection from dead or inactivated viruses. That is patently false.
3) Is high risk and more likely, thus dangerous, than infection by wild virus from unvaccinated [see (1)]. That is false.
4) Is dangerous enough to justify denying advice to vaccinate family/household contacts of the immunocompromised.
5) Should justify denying immunisation of HIV positive patients – despite standard advice to do so.
6) A reason to abandon vaccination.
7) Further reasons within the article.

This is just such a high-quality post and your responses to challenging commenters are pure gold. I hope your message reaches and educates as many people as possible. I’ll be sharing this with a certain “crunchy” mom in my life.
Thank you!

In an enlightening piece “Is the changing definition of autism narrowing what we think of as ‘normal’?”, published in The Conversation the impact of widening the criteria for a diagnosis of autism was examined. There are a number of facts that show yes indeed, the so-called “epidemic” of autism is merely a coincidental rise in diagnoses following the inclusion of more symptoms on the autism spectrum. The article notes;

Before 1980, the word “autistic” appeared in the DSM only as a trait to describe schizophrenia. But that doesn’t mean diagnostic criteria for autism didn’t exist. A 1956 article by Leo Kanner (who is credited with “discovering” autism) and Leon Eisenberg focused on two criteria: aloofness and a significant resistance to changes in routines, noticeable in a child by 24 months of age.

Vaccines then, may have “cured” mental retardation, aloofness, attention seeking, rigidity in behaviour, etc. These have ceased to be common diagnoses as the symptoms were recognised as ASD. The DSM-5 will not include high functioning ASD and Aspergers under “autism”. However prior diagnoses of autism relying on the DSM-IV will persist. The CDC observe with respect to DSM-5 ASD diagnoses;

Note: Individuals with a well-established DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Individuals who have marked deficits in social communication, but whose symptoms do not otherwise meet criteria for autism spectrum disorder, should be evaluated for social (pragmatic) communication disorder.

Liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, quizzed TGA national manager Dr. Hammett, beginning with justified concerns that the TGA knew of high fevers in 2009. Yet more disturbing is that 2005 trial data yielded fever rates of 22.5%. The 2006 fever rates were 39.5%. Despite this, CSL advised the TGA in 2009 of the 2005 figure.

Whilst this vaccine was thus clearly unsuitable for young children, toddlers and babies it is incorrect to generalise and contend that all influenza vaccines are dangerous for all age groups. In fact to do so is a significant misreading and/or misrepresentation of the evidence.